tartbrain wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: >> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXDRNeCFxKQ&NR=1 >>> >> I understand that you are linking his themes with the Maharishi quote Nabby. >> But I see it a little differently. >> >> It isn't capitalism that Patel is targeting as much as free market dominant >> capitalism. All markets have a continuum of regulation and freedom. One of >> our biggest problems in the US is that our system of regulations is >> corrupted by special interest corporate lobbying. This allows some of our >> biggest corporations to act in a way that doesn't serve the public good and >> can even cause disasters like our credit markets. >> >> And yet the incentives created by freedom in markets are a fantastic way to >> get people moving, to create systems of profit that can end up benefiting >> society through job creation. >> > > > Excellent distinction. There is a tendency (or thinking below our full > potential) to generalize Captitalism (or is it Kapitalism,) with all markets. > Often there is actually little corellation. > > What we have and are increasingly getting is cronyistic elitist statism -- > which has NOTHING to do with free markets, particularly free markets at the > at the mom and pop micro level. > > I recently finished, and highly recommend, "Banker to the Poor" by the guy > who won the Nobel prize for his work in implementing and promoting > micro-finance for the world's poor. Its a breakthrough position, in my view > -- giving copious red meat (ok red lentils) to both the right and left (a > defunct set of terms, in my view - how can politics and world view, world and > individual solutions be limited to one dimension?) Ending world poverty by > enabling the 10% of the population to create and grow their open businesses > -- getting out from under the hand of exploitative statist mini-Kapitalists > who control local politics and markets (an oxymoron -- who control controlled > transactions among unfree participants)and enabling the disadvantaged to > creatie wealth, dignity, skill base, and a much more textured and robust > economy. > > And then once again regulations assist so that an employer doesn't exploit > workers, which has not worked in all of our industries but has helped in > some. Looking at working conditions at the turn of the last century we can > see that some progress have been made.
There was a lot of this kind of writing back in the 1970s. Remember "Small is Beautiful" and "Human Scale"? I also read a lot of different economic books back then in Paul Erdman's economic thrillers where he explained economics through the medium of a novel. Too bad he didn't live to see the fiasco that's going on now. As I've mentioned here before I really don't think anyone can really manage a large corporation and those doing so are putting on a charade (sort of illustrated in the movie "The Informant."). I think the economy will collapse so bad that we indeed will be truly left a nation of villages where about everything is locally produced by local small businesses. You can do a lot of things that way including manufacturing electronics and small cars. Do note that people expect the government to "create jobs". Why not charge the government with creating small businesses. Oh no, that might interfere with the operations of the mega corporations. I also maintain there should have been no bailout of the banks in 2008 and the ensuing collapse would have created a short economic depression much less painful than the one we may suffer for decades. The collapse would have hastened the small business scenario.
